Connect with us

News

Defense bill contains gay-related provisions

Expanded conscience protections; sodomy ban repealed in military code

Published

on

United States Capitol Building, dome, gay news, Washington Blade
United States Capitol Building, dome, gay news, Washington Blade

The defense authorization passed by Congress includes gay-related provisions. (Washington Blade file photo by Michael Key)

The U.S. Congress passed major defense budget legislation on Thursday that includes provisions related to the LGBT community — both good and bad — in the aftermath of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

The fiscal year 2014 defense authorization bill contains an expansion of the conscience protections for service members under current law, but also repeals the sodomy ban under military law and calls for a report on HIV policy within the U.S. military.

The Senate approved late Thursday by a vote of 84-15 a $630 billion version of the bill, which primarily reauthorizes pay for troops and funding for military programs. The House already approved the legislation, so it’s heading to President Obama’s desk.

Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), the retiring chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee, issued a statement upon passage of the legislation praising the bipartisan nature of its approval.

“Tonight we passed legislation that is good for our national security, and for the men and women who protect us and their families,” Levin said. “The Senate vote is a strong bipartisan statement that, despite our differences, we can come together and accomplish important business for the good of the country.”

Under Section 532, the legislation contains an expansion of the conscience provision that was enacted as part of last year’s defense authorization bill. Under this provision, the armed services shall accommodate service members’ expression of their beliefs — unless it would have an adverse impact on military readiness or good order and discipline.

The language was inserted by Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) during the Senate Armed Services Committee markup of the fiscal year 2014 defense authorization. It’s along the lines of a conscience amendment submitted by Rep. Mike Fleming (R-La.) during the House Armed Services Committee markup of its version of the bill, but not quite as strong. LGBT advocates decried the House version of the amendment as a means to enable service members to discriminate and harass their gay colleagues.

A related provision, Section 533, instructs the Inspector General of the Department of Defense to submit a report to Congress no longer than 18 months after the bill is signed into law on incidents of adverse personnel actions or discrimination against troops based on their moral beliefs.

Tony Perkins, president of the anti-gay Family Research Council, praised Congress in a statement over inclusion of the provision, which he said is a means for “protecting the right of service members to freely practice and express their faith.”

“Congress acted appropriately after investigating numerous incidents involving service members who have had their careers threatened, and harassed simply for practicing their faith in a real and tangible way,” Perkins said. “The religious liberty violations have grown so frequent in recent years leading many service members to report being too fearful to share their faith.”

After the enactment of the earlier conscience provision under the previous defense authorization bill, Obama said the Pentagon assured him the language wouldn’t change how the armed forces operated. The Defense Department didn’t respond to the Washington Blade’s request for comment on how implementation will work this time around.

Ian Thompson, legislative representative of the American Civil Liberties Union, said the inclusion of the conscience provision in the defense authorization bill was unnecessary.

“The ACLU believes that the Constitution and existing laws and regulations already offer all members of the Armed Forces, including chaplains, strong protections for their religious beliefs,” Thompson said.

Fred Sainz, the Human Rights Campaign’s vice president of communications, expressed a similar sentiment that the provision is unnecessary because service members’ religious views are already protected under current policy.

“Although this amendment is unnecessary, Congress dropped a different version adopted by the House of Representatives that would have been truly harmful, requiring the military to accommodate beliefs, actions, and speech of service members unless the armed forces could prove ‘actual harm’ to good order and discipline,” Sainz said.

But the legislation as a whole also contains positive language sought by LGBT advocates in the aftermath of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal. Among these provisions is Section 1707 — repeal of the ban on sodomy for gay and straight service members under Article 125 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The provision was added by Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.).

In its place, the legislation inserts into military code a provision making “unnatural carnal copulation” with another person “by force” subject to a court martial. The provision also reasserts the ban on bestiality in military code.

Although the sodomy ban was rarely enforced for service members engaging in consensual sex in private, it has remained on the books and been used to prosecute troops in combination with additional infractions.

ACLU’s Thompson said the repeal of the sodomy ban is an important step forward to guarantee the liberty of service members — gay and straight — in the aftermath of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal.

“This is a welcome and overdue step forward that respects the liberty and privacy of all service members, and is especially significant for gay and lesbian service members whose intimate relationships, including marriages, were labeled a violation of military criminal law,” Thompson said. “Removing this stigmatizing and discriminatory provision from the Uniform Code of Military Justice advances the promise of equal treatment for all military personnel.”

Additionally, under Section 572, the legislation directs the Pentagon to submit a report to Congress no later than 180 days after the bill is signed into law on personnel policies regarding service members with HIV or Hepatitis B.  The bill directs the Pentagon to include a description of the policies as well as related retention, deployment and disciplinary actions as well as an assessment of whether these policies are evidence-based and medically accurate.

According to the LGBT military group SPART*A, service members become non-deployable once they’re discovered to have HIV; can’t commission as an officer or warrant officer; can’t fly aircraft or work in any jobs requiring a flight physical; are restricted to stateside duty assignments (with the exception of the Navy); and are not eligible for special schools such as Ranger, Special Forces or other special ops jobs.

Thompson said the provision is welcome because it will examine whether the military’s current HIV policy is appropriate or outdated.

“This review is welcome and overdue becausemany of our laws, policies, and regulations regarding HIV were written at a time when we knew far less about the routes and risks of HIV transmission, and prior to the development of effective HIV treatment,” Thompson said.

Another important non-LGBT provision in the defense authorization bill replaces foreign transfer restrictions in  current law to enable President Obama to close the detention facility in Guantanamo Bay. The bill also seeks to aid victims of sexual assault in the military by criminalizing retaliation against victims who report it,  preventing military commanders from overturning jury convictions and protecting victims of sexual assault from abusive treatment during pre-trial proceedings.

The LGBT group Freedom to Work had said insertion of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act into the defense authorization bill could be a viable way to pass the measure. However, prior to ENDA’s passage in the Senate, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) told the Washington Blade such inclusion wasn’t a viable option because he didn’t know if the larger defense bill would pass.

On Thursday, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney issued a statement saying the administration has concerns with certain aspects of the legislation, but supports it overall.

“Although the bill includes a number of provisions that restrict or limit the Defense Department’s ability to align military capabilities and force structure with the President’s strategy and implement certain efficiencies, overall the Administration is pleased with the modifications and improvements contained in the bill that address most of the Administration’s significant objections with earlier versions regarding these issues,” Carney said. “The Administration supports passage of the legislation.”

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

China

China’s top court acknowledges anti-LGBTQ discrimination

Postgraduate student petitioned for legal clarification

Published

on

(Photo by Aylandy/Bigstock)

China’s Supreme People’s Court on May 8 issued a rare response to a petition involving LGBTQ discrimination.

In a surprising response; it discussed sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression. The response also mentioned workplace discrimination, public humiliation, and school bullying, language considered uncommon from China’s legal system.

The response stemmed from a proposal submitted by a postgraduate student in Qingdao through China’s xinfang petition system on March 25, urging the court to establish clearer judicial standards against discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. Six weeks later, the Supreme People’s Court Research Office issued a written reply.

The Research Office is an internal legal and policy body within the Supreme People’s Court. It studies legal issues, drafts judicial guidance, and responds to legal inquiries submitted through official channels. Its responses do not carry the same legal weight as a judicial interpretation or court ruling.

“The opinions and suggestions you raised are of great value,” reads a translated version of the Supreme People’s Court Research Office response. “In order to thoroughly implement the Constitution, Civil Code, Employment Promotion Law and other legal provisions, and effectively protect citizens’ personality rights from infringement, the Supreme People’s Court has guided local courts at all levels to handle a number of related cases, and through typical cases and other forms has clarified adjudication rules.”

The response stated that courts may determine public insults, defamation and, discriminatory conduct targeting sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression as infringement of personality rights. It also said employers treating individuals differently in hiring, employment, transfer or dismissal based on those characteristics could face employment discrimination claims. Schools could also bear legal responsibility for improper discipline or bullying involving students based on sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression, according to the response.

“It’s not a systematic change from the authorities recognizing LGBTQ rights,” said Yanzi Peng, a prominent LGBTQ rights activist in China and director of China Rainbow Collective Foundation. “However, it’s an informal statement from the Supreme Court. According to a scholar researching LGBTQ legal cases in China, courts are recognizing more cases involving LGBTQ discrimination and same-sex partners through their verdicts.”

China decriminalized consensual same-sex sexual relations in 1997 and removed homosexuality from the country’s list of mental disorders four years later. Chinese law, however, does not recognize same-sex relationships.

Public advocacy involving LGBTQ issues also remains tightly controlled. Authorities in recent years have continued restricting community organizing, public events, and online expression involving sexual minorities.

Discussions involving LGBTQ issues are also frequently censored on Chinese social media platforms. 

Activists and advocacy groups say Chinese authorities in recent years have removed online content, shut down LGBTQ student group accounts and restricted public discussion involving sexual minority issues. After the Supreme People’s Court response began circulating online, related posts and articles were also removed from some Chinese platforms.

“It may still be too early to fully assess the long-term impact, as this development has only just happened and the situation is still unfolding,” said Xiaogang Wei, a Beijing-based LGBTQ rights activist, filmmaker and founder of the China Rainbow Collective Foundation. “Although the reply is not legally binding, it represents a rare form of institutional acknowledgment of SOGIE-related discrimination in China. For Chinese LGBTQ people and advocates, this could become a meaningful reference point for future legal advocacy, public communication, and community awareness.”

Wei said the rapid removal of related posts and articles limited the development’s broader public impact and underscored how fragile LGBTQ visibility remains in China. 

“This is why we believe it is important to continue sharing verified information and ensuring that this development is not erased from public understanding,” Wei said.

Chinese courts in recent years have also heard a number of LGBTQ-related employment discrimination cases, despite the absence of explicit nationwide protections based on sexual orientation or gender identity. In one notable case, the Supreme People’s Court in 2018 formally recognized “equal employment rights disputes” as a legal cause of action, allowing some discrimination-related cases to proceed through the courts.

Chinese courts have previously handled several LGBTQ-related disputes involving employment discrimination, custody, and so-called conversion therapy. In 2024, a Beijing court drew attention after recognizing visitation rights for a child involving a same sex couple, a decision activists described as a milestone for LGBTQ families in China.

Continue Reading

District of Columbia

Man accused of threatening to shoot D.C. bar employee after making anti-gay slurs

May 24 incident took place near Black Pride events on U Street

Published

on

(Bigstock photo)

D.C. police on Sunday, May 24, at around 4:20 p.m. arrested a Maryland man for allegedly threatening to shoot an employee while using anti-gay slurs at Ben’s Next Door restaurant and bar at 1211 U St., N.W.

According to a statement released by police and a police incident report, the arrested man, identified as Delonte Fraley, 32, of Accokeek, Md., made the threats after the employee told a bartender not to serve the man alcohol.

“The suspect overheard the employee and threatened to shoot the employee and used homophobic slurs against the employee,” the police statement says. “When the employee left the restaurant for the day, the suspect was standing near the employee’s vehicle,” it says.

“The employee returned to the restaurant and called the police,” the statement continues. “The suspect was apprehended by responding officers,” it says.

The police statement says the arresting officers charged Fraley with Felony Threats (Hate/Bias).

D.C. Superior Court records show prosecutors with the Office of the U.S. Attorney for D.C., which prosecutes D.C. criminal cases, escalated the charge to Threatening to Injure or Kidnap a Person (Bias-Related Hate Crime).

The incident occurred during Memorial Day weekend when thousands of visitors and D.C. area LGBTQ advocates and supporters were attending D.C. Black Pride events held in locations across the city, including Black Pride parties hosted by LGBTQ bars in the U Street entertainment area near Ben’s Next Door.

Among the nearby LGBTQ bars hosting D.C. Black Pride events were Nellie’s Sports Bar and Thurst Lounge. Ben’s Next Door is located next to the popular longtime U Street eatery Ben’s Chili Bowl.

Court records show that Judge Robert R. Rigsby at a May 25 presentment hearing released Fraley on personal recognizance with a stay-away order — the details of which were not publicly disclosed pending a June 4 preliminary hearing.   

A more detailed arrest affidavit filed in court by D.C. police says Fraley allegedly confronted the employee at Ben’s Next Door with anti-gay slurs on the day prior to his arrest.

“The complainant told the defendant that because he used homophobic slurs towards himself previously on May 23, 2026, and his hostess, as well as making threats to the complainant and calling him a faggot, he was unable to stay in the establishment,” the affidavit states.

It adds, “The defendant became irate stating, ‘I know where your Tesla is at. See me outside faggot, I will slap your ass’ and ‘I will shoot your ass.’” The affidavit says the complainant confirmed to police the Tesla referred to by Fraley was his vehicle. It says as the victim walked toward his car after getting off work, he saw Fraley standing directly in front of the car.

“The complainant stated he felt unsafe while the defendant was standing in front of his vehicle because he felt the defendant was capable of carrying out those threats,” says the affidavit. It says the victim then decided to return to the restaurant and call police without the defendant having seen him.  

“The defendant was placed under arrest for Felony Threats Hate/Bias and was transported to the Third District Station for processing,” the affidavit concludes.

It couldn’t immediately be determined whether the victim identifies as LGBTQ or whether any of the Ben’s Next Door patrons had been involved with D.C. Black Pride.

“Established in 2008, Ben’s Next Door is a family-owned and operated restaurant and bar on U Street, Northwest in Washington, D.C.,” a statement on its website says. “As a Black-owned establishment, it’s our goal to deliver a warm, welcoming, familiar, and communal vibe to all guests,” the statement says.    

Continue Reading

2026 Midterm Elections

Bree Fram’s congressional campaign ends but her fight continues

Former highest-ranking trans military member steps back from Va. congressional race

Published

on

Bree Fram (Photo courtesy of Bree Fram)

After being forced to retire, Bree Fram couldn’t stop. Restless even after giving everything she had to make the United States Air Force — and later the Space Force — better in every way she could, Fram quickly turned toward a new mission: public office.

The same tenacity that fueled her rise from Air Force researcher to the highest-ranking openly transgender officer in the United States Armed Forces would eventually carry her onto the campaign trail in Virginia.

Now, after months of campaigning, countless conversations with voters, and abrupt shifts in Virginia’s political landscape, Fram has stepped back from her congressional run.

Fram sat down with the Blade to discuss her decision to step away, what she learned on the campaign trail, and what comes next.

Earlier this month, the Virginia Supreme Court struck down a voter-approved Democratic congressional redistricting plan that likely would have created multiple additional Democratic-leaning seats in the U.S. House. The ruling dramatically altered the district Fram had built her campaign around and left little time for candidates to adjust before voting began.

“That decision really was the end of my campaign, that there was not the chance after that ruling, particularly so late in the game, for me to meaningfully pivot back to a different district and have a conversation with voters with just five weeks to go until early voting started,” Fram said. “I do feel that the will of the people has been ignored over a technicality regarding the date of Election Day.”

For Fram, the ruling was not only politically devastating, but personally frustrating after months spent building relationships with voters and shaping a campaign around the district’s needs.

“What was incredibly disappointing about it was that none of the facts about the case had changed from the beginning of the year until when they made the ruling,” she said.

Still, Fram entered the race with a platform centered on affordability, government accountability, and protecting fundamental rights, pledging “to protect our rights, make opportunity affordable, and build a government that works for the people.”

That message focused heavily on affordability — one of the defining political issues of 2026 — and lowering costs for Virginians across ideological, geographic, and generational divides. Fram said voters responded warmly to that vision, even if it ultimately did not lead to an office in the Rayburn House Office Building on Capitol Hill.

“The experience on the trail was fantastic. As a first-time candidate, you never know what you’re really getting yourself into, but any chance I had to get out there and talk with people was amazing,” Fram said. “I had the opportunity to change folks’ minds about trans people, about people from Northern Virginia.”

One conversation with a rural Virginia voter especially stayed with her.

“I called someone who runs a rural art shop… and he started talking about Democrats messaging on trans issues being such a problem,” Fram recalled. “And I’m like, do you know that you’re talking to one?”

Throughout the campaign, Fram said she often found herself breaking down preconceived notions about both transgender people and military service. The impact of that visibility became especially clear during another interaction on the trail that still stays with her.

“I had a young person, maybe 20 years old, come up to me. I could tell there was something on their mind,” Fram said. “I preempted them by saying ‘If you were about to ask if I’m trans, the answer is yes.’”

The young person, she said, appeared visibly relieved.

“As we made small talk I could tell there was something else he wanted to ask,” Fram continued. “Eventually they got it out– that they think they might be too.”

The moment quickly turned emotional.

“And then I asked, do you need a hug, they leaned in at first and then just hung on for dear life,” she said. “So what it means to our community to have that kind of representation out there, and to hopefully inspire others, was incredibly important.”

For Fram, those moments became some of the most meaningful parts of the campaign.

“My experience, I think, helped just shape what was our strategy,” she said.

The campaign also came at a uniquely difficult moment in Fram’s life. The Human Rights Campaign honored Fram alongside four other transgender military officials during a Jan. 8 event in Washington commemorating the forced retirement of transgender service members following President Donald Trump’s Executive Order 14183, “Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness,” which directed the Pentagon to prohibit transgender, nonbinary, and gender-nonconforming people from serving openly in the military.

Even while navigating the fallout from the discriminatory policy that forced her retirement, Fram launched a campaign rooted heavily in direct voter engagement and personal storytelling.

Her decades in the military, she said, fundamentally shaped how she approached campaigning and leadership.

“As an officer, particularly the more senior you become, you get more and more training on ‘what does it mean to match your ends’ ways and means,’” Fram said. “My end goal was get into office … and constantly reassess what it looks like.”

Fram also said her military background informed her progressive politics more than many voters expected.

“My military background was interesting, because I was running as the progressive candidate,” she said. “People think you were in the military, how can you possibly be the progressive person?”

Her answer, she said, often surprised people.

“Well, where did you think I learned this stuff?” Fram said. “No matter who we were at the same rank, no matter what our job was, we all got paid the same. We all had government-provided health care where we never needed to worry about a medical bill.”

For Fram, and those who talked with her on the trail, military service reinforced the idea that good governance allows people to thrive.

“You actually learn a lot about progressive policies and good governance that lets people be their best self in the military,” she said. “We understand that military officers’ oaths don’t expire when their time in uniform does, and I think that resonated with a lot of people, that veterans can be part of the solution in getting us out of the situation that we are in today.”

Before launching her campaign, Fram built one of the most extensive careers of any openly transgender military officer in U.S. history, serving in senior leadership roles across the Air Force, Space Force, and intelligence community.

Most recently, she served as chief of the Requirements Integration Division at Headquarters, Space Force, after previously leading acquisition policy for the Air Force’s space programs. Earlier in her career, she oversaw advanced weapons and cyberspace programs at the Air Force Research Laboratory, managed billions in foreign military sales and intelligence-related operations, worked on Capitol Hill as a legislative fellow, and directed major engineering and national security programs at the National Reconnaissance Office.

Fram also co-led the Department of the Air Force’s LGBTQ+ Initiatives Team and deployed in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. She holds a master’s degree from the Air Force Institute of Technology and is a distinguished graduate of the Naval War College.

Despite stepping away from the race, Fram said she remains optimistic about the future.

“When I look at the big picture of what we did and how we ran a campaign, that is what I’m most proud of,” she said. “It really is the strategy that my team and I were able to craft, the messaging that we were able to share, that was all about connecting our personal story, the story of America to something that says we need a vision of what can be.”

Fram rejected the idea that ending her congressional campaign means ending her public life altogether.

“I can absolutely guarantee that I will not get off the stage. It is just a question of what stage or stages do I jump to,” she said.

She also encouraged LGBTQ people — especially transgender Americans — to stay politically engaged despite increasingly hostile rhetoric and legislation nationwide.

“Just do it,” Fram said. “It is incredibly important to show at every level that people can engage with the political process and make a meaningful difference.”

Continue Reading

Popular